THE HOBBS ACT -- 18 U.S.C. § 1951 is an anti-racketeering statue that bars any interference with interstate commerce. This statue was successfully used by the Justice department to convict several Chicago police officers they claimed interfered with alcoholic beverages destined to be delivered to barroom drinkers.Firearms are almost always shipped in interstate commerce and some cities and states have enacted various gun bans that clearly interfere with delivery to qualified consumers.
My question is can people victimized by gun bans seek relief from the federal courts under the Hobbs Act? Let’s call in the GANGBUSTERS!
5 comments:
As an attorney, I would have to answer your question in the negative. First, a bit of legal mumbo jumbo regarding the right to keep and bear arms:
No municapility can ban ALL firearms, as doing so would violate the Second Amendment. However, they can regulate which type of firearm you may own. Take Chicago for example. . . While a person may not own an unregistered firearm, and while no handguns can even be registered, the ordinance allows for shotguns and rifles. Thus, the City of Chicago has effectively banned most usable firearms by allowing and providing a means of ownership for these types of weapons.
Now I have to admit that applying the Hobbs Act to handguns is an interesting idea, but it's a stretch. Whenever you wish to apply a legislative act to a given fact pattern, you must first look to the legislative intent of the statute. In order to apply the Act, the legislative intent must be served. I haven't done any such research in regard to the Hobbs Act, but I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't apply to handguns.
If you want to read up on current Supreme Court law regarding handguns and interstate commerece, I'd point you to United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549.
I have discussed it with at least one gun rights lawyer who thinks the idea MAY have merit. It will depend on full legal research, and if feasible pushing it through the courts.
Remember this is not really a Second Amendment Issue but one of lawful commerce.
My theory is that The Hobbs Act, which has been around much longer than most gun laws, makes it clear that commerce will not be interrupted.
If the products are legal under federal law then perhaps the state and local governments have to allow free movement. We can only hope that's the case!
United States v. Lopez does not give clear guidance here but is helpful.
Remember I call this a novel approach...
Gun grabbers want to grab all guns. It was once the "saturday night special" that was the enemy. An inexpensive handgun was more dangerous than an expensive handgun. The logic was flawed except that poor people could only afford inexpensive guns.
Another argument that was popular during the "saturday night special" hysteria was that if we are all members of a militia, then handguns aren't needed. So as a milita member, what would be better than an "assault rifel?" Of course, true assault rifles have selective fire and may be fired at full automatic.
A goof in California, I believe in 1989, shot up a school yard and the gungrabbers were up in arms again. So now assault rifles are the new evil and they too must be banned.
So that leaves us with lever and bolt action rifles, pump rifles, shotguns.....for the time being. The gungrabbers want those too, but they can't win a total gun ban, they have to pick us apart.
It's all media hype and packaging. What is the differance between an AR-15 and a Ruger mini-14? Both are semi-auto and both shoot a 5.56 mm. The appearance of the rifles is all, yet one is banned and one is not. You figure.
No where do I see gun grabbers taking aim (no pun intended) at the real problem: people willing to shoot other people. It's against the law in the entire civilized world to shoot someone without cause. But gun grabbers act as if these weapons are just jumping out of the ground and landing in the hands of innocents, who not knowing any better, shoot someone.
We have all the laws at our disposal to address the problems of violence. How about using them instead of putting more laws on top of laws that aren't being enforced. Criminals do not obey the laws; we shouldn't punish law abiding citizens.
why hasnt the national rifle association been more pro-active in california?
take a look at the kevin redrick case in los angles.
on oct 4 2005 at 0400 hrs, kevin redrick was arrested, by the los angeles police department, after lapd detective jerry kowalsky, informed mr. redrick, that the justice department said he was a 2 time drug sales felon, once sentenced to probation.
mr redrick was told by detective kowalsky, that he had a warrant, to search kevin,s residence.
mr redrick, asked to veiw, this search warrant, but was denied.
a males hispanic swat team member, told mr redrick, he must open his gun safe,if not, lapd will call a locksmith, to drill and tap, the safe open.
mr redrick, was forced, to open his amsec gun safe, while handcuffed.
lapd detective jerry kowalsky then said, the judge told him to seize mr redricks legally owned 30 piece firearms collection, and ammo.
mr redrick, was transported, to jail, by a male asian officer.
once mr redrick arrived at jail, the on site officers, were confused, as to why mr redrick, had been arrested.
after 15 minutes, the male asian detective, and other officers, began searching, the california penal code manual, to find the desired criminal charge, to file against mr redrick.
mr redrick, spent 34 days in la,s deplorable jail system.
while in custody, mr redrick was given, a strip search, and his inmate booking slip was taken from him.
after mr redrick, posted bail on nov 8 2005, he then learned lapd had, altered the criminal charge against him 3 times.
his standing charge is now 12021 (ca) 1pc.
however mr redrick was charge with different criminal charge, as he arrived for booking.
once mr redrick, arrived home, he discovered, that he was originally charge with the criminal penal code 12280 (b)pc, on his receipt for property taken into custody.
mr redrick, was moved from cell to cell often, for unknown reasons.
this was done because the los angeles sheriff,s were hiding him, at the request of police chief william bratton.
mr redrick, has been to court 16 times,but each time lapd,has not shown in court.
he was denied his preliminary hearing, until his 14th court?
this was illegally done, to allow lapd to gain favorable, unjust, legal advantages, over mr redrick.
mr redrick also, prevailed in a residence eviction case, in which lapd, macbeth apartment systems, and their attorney,s kimbal-tirey, and saint john, attempted to evict mr redrick.
sadly, his landlord has filed a 2nd evicton
case, against mr redrick, scheduled, for court on april 12 2006.
the judge marcelita v haynes, assigned to mr redricks case, committed prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct, in the handling of mr redricks case.
mr redrick,s case was illegally diverted, to judge marcelita v haynes corrupt courtroom, to gain a illegal advantage during mr redrick,s court proceedings. mr redricks assigned public defender salvador salgado, has also assisted lapd in the false arrest, and fabrication of criminal charges gainst mr redrick.
deputy public defender salvador salgado, has done the following, to assist lapd frame mr. redrick.
1 submitt mr redricks finger prints, on a fis finger print card, to fabricate a criminal drug sales conviction record.
2 hide evidence, which could exonerate mr redrick.
3 inform lapd on mr redricks legal strategic moves.
4 failure to introduce evidence, which could exonerate mr redrick,
mr redrikcs arrest, was a retaliation arrest, after mr redrick filed a internal affairs complaint, against lapd officers who had illegally searched his residence, stole cash, personal documents,
dis-charged several of his hand guns, and began a smear campaign against him.
several state senators, were asked to assist mr redrick, in his false arrest.
senator dianne feinstein, senator barbara boxer, senator john mccain.
however, no help has arrived yet.
the california commission on judicial performance, must investigate kevins, assigned criminal court judge marcelita v haynes.
the los angeles public defenders office integrity assurance section, must investigate
the illegal conduct, of public defender salvador salgado.
thanks for your reading of my post.
kevin redrick
booking number 8761400
criminal case number ba29134701
next court date
may 15 2006 division 134 15th floor 210 west temple street . presiding judge mark v mooney.
kevin redrick
sigboy@webtv.net
Hi,
Nice and informative post.
Keep posting.
Post a Comment